[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230619144651.kvmscndienyfr3my@box.shutemov.name>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2023 17:46:51 +0300
From: "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
"bagasdotme@...il.com" <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"Wysocki, Rafael J" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Chatre, Reinette" <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
"Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"Yamahata, Isaku" <isaku.yamahata@...el.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Shahar, Sagi" <sagis@...gle.com>,
"imammedo@...hat.com" <imammedo@...hat.com>,
"Gao, Chao" <chao.gao@...el.com>,
"Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>,
"sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com"
<sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 18/20] x86: Handle TDX erratum to reset TDX private
memory during kexec() and reboot
On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 07:31:21AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 6/19/23 04:43, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > On Mon, 2023-06-12 at 06:47 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 6/12/23 03:27, Huang, Kai wrote:
> >>> So I think a __mb() after setting tdmr->pamt_4k_base should be good enough, as
> >>> it guarantees when setting to any pamt_*_size happens, the valid pamt_4k_base
> >>> will be seen by other cpus.
> >>>
> >>> Does it make sense?
> >> Just use a normal old atomic_t or set_bit()/test_bit(). They have
> >> built-in memory barriers are are less likely to get botched.
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > Using atomic_set() requires changing tdmr->pamt_4k_base to atomic_t, which is a
> > little bit silly or overkill IMHO. Looking at the code, it seems
> > arch_atomic_set() simply uses __WRITE_ONCE():
>
> How about _adding_ a variable that protects tdmr->pamt_4k_base?
> Wouldn't that be more straightforward than mucking around with existing
> types?
What's wrong with simple global spinlock that protects all tdmr->pamt_*?
It is much easier to follow than a custom serialization scheme.
--
Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists